Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 26, 2022

Velez v. CAN Trucking Inc.

Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Docket
1:22-cv-09107
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Velez v. CAN Trucking Inc., Judge Kaplan required a corrected removal notice or the case would return to state court.

Who this affects

Maria Velez, CAN Trucking Inc., and Leesent Stapleton; the case would return to state court unless the defendants filed an adequate amended notice of removal by November 2, 2022.

What happened

In Velez v. CAN Trucking Inc., the defendants removed the case from state court to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states and the amount in dispute to exceed a statutory threshold. The court found that the notice of removal did not adequately allege the facts needed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court also stated that all defendants had not joined in the removal. It gave the defendants until November 2, 2022, to file an amended notice of removal that adequately alleged federal jurisdiction. If they did not do so, the court said the case would be sent back to state court.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued the order on October 26, 2022. The order did not decide the underlying dispute between Maria Velez, CAN Trucking Inc., and Leesent Stapleton.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Velez v. CAN Trucking Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09107
Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Date
Oct. 26, 2022

Background

The defendants removed the action from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. They invoked federal subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which provides for diversity jurisdiction in qualifying cases.

Court’s Analysis

The court ruled that the notice of removal did not adequately allege the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order refers to possible deficiencies involving the citizenship or nature of parties or business entities, but the checklist formatting in the provided opinion is unclear. The court also stated that the notice of removal had not been joined by all defendants.

Disposition

The court ordered that, unless an amended notice of removal adequately alleging subject-matter jurisdiction was filed by November 2, 2022, the action would be remanded to state court. The order did not reach the merits of the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.